Oral evidence: Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership, HC 639
Oral evidence, 15 April 2024.
Witnesses
Sir Matthew Rycroft, Simon Ridley, Dan Hobbs, and Joanna Rowland.
Chair
Welcome to the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 15 April 2024. Today, we are looking at two areas of asylum support in the Home Office: first, the costs of the UK-Rwanda partnership and, secondly, the Government’s long-term strategy for asylum accommodation. As we are aware, in 2022 the Government announced a partnership with the Government of Rwanda to relocate to Rwanda some people seeking asylum if they arrive in the UK illegally, which generally speaking is on small boats. Under the partnership, the Home Office has agreed to pay significant sums to Rwanda, which this Committee and our sister Select Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, have been examining. We have had some interesting conversations with the Home Office about why and when we can receive information about that money. Thankfully, the National Audit Office has now dug into those figures and has been able to reveal exactly what the forward costs are for the Rwanda partnership, and we want to talk to the Home Office about them today. By the end of 2024, the Home Office expects to have spent about £28 million on the partnership, regardless of how many asylum seekers have been sent. On asylum accommodation, as all of us around this table know, many hotels are being used to house the asylum seekers coming over. Obviously, that is not desirable in the long term, and the Home Office solution has been to create large sites. But, again, the National Audit Office has looked into that and highlighted some big concerns for the Public Accounts Committee and our sister Committee about the cost and readiness of those sites, and we want to ask questions about that. In the year to March 2024, the Home Office expects to spend about £4.7 billion on asylum support, including £3.1 billion on hotels for that year. Those are significant sums, and we want to dig into the issues. I welcome our witnesses, and I will make some introductions for visitors to the Committee. From the Home Office, we have Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary; Simon Ridley, the second permanent secretary; Joanna Rowland, director general of the Customer Services Group at the Home Office; and Dan Hobbs, director general of the Migration and Borders Group, who is back with us again. I also warmly welcome Dame Diana Johnson, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who is guesting with us today, and the deputy Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Tim Loughton MP. They are welcome as they join us. I have two Members who wish to make declarations of interest.
Olivia Blake
I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration, and I am also a principal for the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy group. My details are set out in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Paula Barker
I want to place on record the fact that my son is employed via an agency contract to work on the asylum backlog.
Chair
So we have skin in the game. Before we go into the main session, I wanted to pick up on a couple of issues. We received the accounting officer assessment from you, Sir Matthew, about the sovereign borders programme, which is on this very subject. You sent it to us on 27 March, but it was actually agreed in the Home Office in June last year and went through your finance and investment committee in January last year, so why the delay in getting that accounting officer assessment to Parliament?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First, thank you for this opportunity to discuss all these important issues with you again. That accounting officer assessment, as you say, was completed last summer. It was up to Ministers when to make that public, and they decided to make it public in March.
Chair
But you are the accounting officer; it is your assessment. Are there any reasons from the accounting officer end of things why there should have been, or needed to be, a delay of nine months?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is an assessment that I keep under review. I update it whenever things change, and I think the publication of accounting officer advice, or summaries thereof, has to be agreed by the relevant Ministers, which in this case would be the Home Secretary.
Chair
We have seen only the summary of this. Can we have access to the full accounting officer assessment on the normal terms?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think you can have access on the normal terms, but I think the normal terms include the Home Secretary, in the Home Office’s case, being comfortable each time with that release.
Chair
Certainly with other Departments, when we ask to see the full accounting officer assessment, we do not usually hit a barrier of a Minister’s approval being necessary, because you are accountable to us on the Public Accounts Committee and, through us, to Parliament as an accounting officer. You are saying that, if you ask the Home Secretary and he says yes, we will have the normal access?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely.
Chair
Of course, the National Audit Office has access anyway; it might be worth reminding the Home Secretary of that. We have ways of getting to it, but it would be helpful if we could see it. If we could also extend that invitation to senior members of the Home Affairs Committee, that would be helpful. In terms of what the assessment covers, you talk about it being constantly under review, but it only covers the Nationality and Borders Act, not the other legislation covering this area. Is there any reason for that?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The Nationality and Borders Act was the legislation in place at that time. There was separate accounting officer advice, as you would expect, for the Illegal Migration Act and, of course, for the safety of Rwanda Bill, which is going through the House now.
Chair
So you are not planning to put that all together, given that they are dealing with broadly the same subject and there is a lot of bleed-over in money and spend?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
You are absolutely right that there is a lot of interrelationship between the different parts of this programme of activity, all of which is designed to stop the boats and to deter illegal migration—people putting their lives, and those of others, at risk. I make sure that there is accounting officer advice both on each individual part of that package of activity and on the totality. I will make sure that you have access to summaries as and when we publish them.
Chair
You sent this to us on 27 March, roughly nine months after it was agreed in the Home Office. Have you produced any other accounting officer assessments since June last year that we have not yet seen?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Not in relation to that piece of legislation; no.
Chair
What about in relation to the Rwanda Bill and the Illegal Migration Act?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes, there is accounting officer advice on all the things that we are about to talk about, including on all the large sites, for instance, which I update quarterly. There are small packets of accounting officer advice and then they add up to the totality of looking at a whole programme as well.
Chair
What accounting officer assessments have you written that we have not yet seen? How many, for a start?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I can come back to you with a precise number, but it depends what you count as a separate piece of advice. I update the accounting officer advice for each of these large sites each quarter, and there are four large sites in operation—that would be 12 things since nine months ago, just in relation to the large sites—and then there are other parts of the programme that receive their own accounting officer advice, all of which is private until a summary is made public.
Chair
You say that, but we have been on a bit of a drive as a Public Accounts Committee, because there was a bit of a backlog in some Departments, and we are now expecting to see things when they are written, pretty much—within days or a week or so. Why is the Home Office not doing that and providing Parliament with information?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think the Home Office is doing that. The Home Office is—
Chair
You say there are 12 outstanding—that we have not seen.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We have a formal obligation to provide you with summaries of that advice. I have committed to updating you more often than that, whenever there is a substantive change to any significant piece of accounting officer advice, and I will recommit to that today, Chair. But often assessments are made behind the scenes where there is, essentially, continuity of judgment.
Chair
As a Public Accounts Committee, we do see things, if necessary, in “Reading Room” terms, to make sure that we are holding you, as accounting officer for taxpayers’ money, to account. Even during covid, I was invited into Departments to see accounting officer assessments in full where we felt there was a necessity to do that. The more we don’t see them, the more we think we need to be seeing them, so can you give us a bit more reassurance that you are going to actually provide information to Parliament through this Committee?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely, Chair. I will absolutely update you whenever there is a summary to be published. In addition, whenever there is a substantive change to any of the assessments—for instance, on the value for money of the Rwanda scheme or on the value for money of any of the large sites we are about to talk about—I will commit to telling you and the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Finally, I will absolutely commit to doing what I have already done with the Home Affairs Select Committee, which is, when there is commercially sensitive information, to see whether the Home Secretary agrees that that can be discussed in a private session, as we did with the Home Affairs Select Committee a month or two ago.
Chair
I have to say that accounting officers of other Departments just provide that information; it’s not usually a big issue to have it signed off. I don’t know whether the Treasury officer of accounts would like to say something here about what is normally expected by Departments in providing accounting officer assessments to Parliament and about exactly what an accounting officer assessment is. It seems that there is a bit of a fudge here, Sir Matthew, about what you say an accounting officer assessment is and what we would expect.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I can assure you there is no fudge, Chair. I look forward to hearing what the Treasury officer of accounts says.
David Fairbrother
As the Committee knows, for projects in the GMPP—the Government’s major projects programme—there is a requirement to publish accounting officer assessments, including when there is a significant change. I know that, internally in Departments, there can be formal accounting officer assessments and informal accounting officer advice, and it sounds like some of the things Sir Matthew is referring to are where he has had advice that has said that nothing significant has changed. In those circumstances, we would not expect a summary to be republished.
Chair
Thank you. We would like some of this, to see for ourselves whether there has been a significant change. I am going to ask Olivia Blake to come in here.
Olivia Blake
I have a couple of questions, going back to the assessment. When was the scheme itself—the programme itself—last approved by your finance and investment committee?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It was approved last year, and then different parts of it get approved subsequently. For instance, when we are approaching a local authority to discuss a new large site, there will be a separate approval by the investment committee at that stage.
Olivia Blake
Do you believe that the programme still meets the four standards set out in “Managing Public Money”?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes, with the exception of the value-for-money test in relation to the Rwanda parts of the scheme, which are covered by the ministerial direction.
Olivia Blake
But we do not have an assessment that includes the Rwanda scheme in front of us, do we?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Well, there is separate accounting officer advice, which the Committee has seen, in relation to the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.
Olivia Blake
Does the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act not constitute a substantial change?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It was a very significant piece of legislation, yes, and it has its own accounting officer assessments and so on.
Olivia Blake
Do you think that there is going to be a further reiteration of this assessment, to take all these things into consideration?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As I said to the Chair, I keep this under constant review, and as the Treasury officer of accounts has said, I receive informal advice very frequently to update different parts of the accounting officer advice. I commit to letting this Committee know, first of all, when there is a summary of anything in the major projects portfolio, and when there is any significant change of assessment. I have stuck to that commitment and I have recommitted to that today.
Olivia Blake
So when are we going to see something more relevant to the timings that we have in front of us and the changes since then, that you have shared with us?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Whenever there are changes.
Olivia Blake
But there have been significant changes, so when will we see that updated in the assessment that you provide to us?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
When something changes.
Olivia Blake
But things have changed—sorry.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
And I have updated you. I will carry on updating you.
Chair
I think we will need to take some of this offline and work with our colleagues at the National Audit Office to have a good look through what is coming through in accounting officer advice. But can I say that nine months is a very long delay for something so significant, which had gone through your finance and investment committee? It goes through finance and investment, and six months later it is agreed, but then it is nine months before Parliament sees it. Sir Matthew, you will recall that we had a joint session only a few months ago because we weren’t getting information in real time. We seem to be going around the same loop again. It is very unfortunate.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First, I hope that we have resolved the issues that we were discussing previously. I can commit to ensuring that there is a free flow of information. On some issues, it is right and proper that the Home Secretary is the decision maker, rather than myself as the accounting officer. That certainly relates to anything on the ministerial direction on value for money for the Rwanda scheme, but it also relates to other significant parts of the Government’s response to the illegal migration challenge.
Chair
We could end up having an interesting and lengthy debate about the constitutional position here, but a ministerial letter of direction does not give carte blanche for the Minister to override the accounting officer’s view of what should be reported to Parliament. You have direct accountability to this Committee, and to Parliament through this Committee.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Absolutely, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously, but I am just saying that the effect of the ministerial direction, in this instance, is that it is the Home Secretary who is accountable for the value for money, not the accounting officer. That is what a ministerial direction means, in effect.
Chair
Well, yes, but as the programme changes—I think we may need to take this offline to have further discussions.
Dame Diana Johnson
I want to be clear about the safety of Rwanda Bill. There is advice that has been given, but it has not been made available. When is that likely to be made available?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I will have to get back to you. I think it is as the Bill receives Royal Assent, but I will get back to you.
Dame Diana Johnson
Is that the same with the Illegal Migration Act?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That has received Royal Assent already.
Dame Diana Johnson
But the advice has not been published or made available to the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I thought a summary of it had, but if I am wrong, then I will get back to you or one of my colleagues will update us. [Interruption.] We published the impact assessment, and we will get back to you on the timing of publishing the summary of the full accounting officer advice.
Chair
When that was sent to us, we were already in recess—I think it was sent on 27 March, when we had already broken up. That is really sub-optimal. I will say again that your parliamentary team—maybe they are at the back listening—need to be a bit sharper on understanding parliamentary deadlines, because all of this meant that we have only been able to raise the issue now. That puts Parliament and the taxpayer on the back foot, which I am sure is not what you intend, so can we make sure we sharpen up on that, please? I want to move on to the issue of where the money is coming from for some of our asylum support. I will hand over to the deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Good afternoon, Sir Matthew. You will be aware that, four days ago, the BBC reported that £4.3 billion of the foreign aid budget went on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. A lot of the British public would be surprised to find that what they thought they were spending on important work in developing countries was instead being spent in this country on dealing with refugees and asylum seekers. Is that sustainable?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is absolutely not sustainable, which is why the Government are taking such novel, decisive and robust action to stop the boats and, more broadly, to deter illegal migration. As you know, Sir Geoffrey, it is a statutory obligation for the Government to provide support, including accommodation, for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The rules of overseas development assistance mean that, in any donor country, in the first year those costs count as official development assistance. So it is not a choice of the British Government to score that money as official development assistance; it is just part of the rules of what counts as ODA.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
It may well be part of the rules, and it may well qualify for ODA spending. Of course, part of the answer is to try to reduce that cost, which has gone up 16% since 2022, but it is a quarter of all our aid spending, so it is a very big part of that spending. Just because it is allowable under the rules, is that a correct way of allocating these costs? Should it not come under the Home Office budget?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
What I meant by my previous answer, Sir Geoffrey, just to elucidate, is that there is no choice. It is not a Government policy decision whether or not to count this spending as ODA. It is ODA. It has to count as ODA, because the rules describe what sorts of activity count as official development assistance, then a donor like the UK abides by those rules and sets out annually all its spending that meets those rules. This spending, for the first year of asylum seekers, does meet those rules. That is why there is no choice about it but to score it as ODA. Of course, there is also a very significant amount of activity to reduce those costs, which are much too high. That is why, as I sure we will talk about, we are seeking to reduce our reliance on hotels, which are a very large proportion of those costs: to bear down on that money, not least so that the official development assistance part of taxpayers’ money can be spent elsewhere.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
We shall be examining a lot of where that money is spent. Can I move on to a different subject? You will be aware that The Times today has reported that you are actively in talks with four countries other than Rwanda for third country removal of asylum seekers: Armenia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana. It also reports that 16 other countries have been approached. Can you tell us what stage your discussions have got to with those four countries that seem to be in the frontline?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The first thing to say is that of course the Government do not comment on leaks. Secondly, that is an out-of-date document. I do not think that the Committee should assume that there are active negotiations with those four countries or that everything else in that document is currently accurate.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
If it is an out-of-date document, can you update us, please?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think it is important that the substance of any negotiations with any countries other than Rwanda is kept private. However, I am happy to pursue the possibility of briefing a number of you behind the scenes, if that would be helpful.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Maybe we can discuss this in Committee Room terms in private. It is important that we on this Committee, perhaps jointly with the Home Affairs Committee, are as updated on these matters as we possibly can be, because presumably there may well be good reasons why you would not want to send them all to Rwanda. You may want to split the load, for example.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is Government policy to explore with other countries the possibility of partnerships like the one with Rwanda. It is the job of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to scope out which countries might be available for that sort of partnership and then hand over to the Home Office at a due point to have the negotiation, as we successfully did in relation to Rwanda. But I think Committee Room terms would be the way to take forward any further discussion about the specifics of any countries.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is a really helpful answer. I appreciate the commercial confidentiality of these discussions, but it is important that our two Committees are updated as soon as possible.
Matt Warman
To push a bit further on that, when you are thinking about which countries you might explore, which as you say is very much Government policy, what criteria are you using to work out who to approach first?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As I said, the Home Office quite rightly leaves the initial triage of countries to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It looks at a range of things, including the human rights situation in the country, the UK’s relationship with the country, the size and capacity of the country and so on.
Matt Warman
Can you give us a sense of how many countries have been assessed and how many have got through to a further round, for instance?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
On the basis of what you will have read, I think that the Committee will be disappointed by the numbers that have got through the triaging process. The numbers in the Report would suggest that there are—
Chair
I am not sure that you can ascribe feelings to the Committee. We are not here to discuss our views on the policy.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
My apologies. What I meant was that there are a lot that have been assessed, and a tiny number are into the next stages of work.
Matt Warman
Could you give us a sense of how many, as The Times reports, have rejected our overtures?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, I do not think that I can do that in public.
Chair
It is a number we are talking about; we are not asking for names. Apparently the list is too long for The Times to print.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think it would be right for a discussion on Committee Room terms, but broadly I would say that when the Foreign Office approaches different countries, some of them reject the suggestion outright; others are interested and the conversation continues.
Matt Warman
We can take it from that that some countries have rejected it.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes.
Dame Diana Johnson
It has now been two years since the Rwanda scheme was first announced, and obviously nobody has yet been sent to Rwanda. In terms of plan B, and the Home Office looking actively at other countries, I assume we would be looking at a similar lead-in time to set something up for another country, wouldn’t we?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First, the Home Office and the Government as a whole are busy pursuing plan A, which is the Safety of Rwanda Bill going through Parliament, the treaty between the UK and Rwanda, and operationalising that.
Dame Diana Johnson
I understand that. What about plan B?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
At the same time, we plan for all sorts of different scenarios, which is why the work is ongoing in relation to other countries as well. And there are other parts of the strategy to reduce illegal, irregular and dangerous crossings, including all of the work that we do upstream.
Dame Diana Johnson
In terms of plan B and other countries, we know the numbers that we are looking at for removals to Rwanda are fairly small at the moment. I know it is uncapped in the long term, but in the short term it is very limited—a few hundred, perhaps. So if you are looking at sharing the load, as it has been described, and looking at other countries for plan B, we would still be looking at probably a year or two years.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
You are right to say that there is a long lead time in terms of negotiation and preparation, but there are also benefits in having a system up and running in terms of deterrence. The Government’s agreement with Albania, for instance, has demonstrated, in terms of Albanian nationals, some benefit—
Dame Diana Johnson
Sir Matthew, you know as well as I do that Albania is a very different kettle of fish from the Rwanda scheme and the deterrence that Rwanda is being put forward to meet, so it is not correct to say that.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The reason I mentioned it in that context is that the Albania agreement demonstrates the power of the deterrent effect. The reason that the Rwanda scheme is plan A, if you like, is that that is applicable to nationals from a range of countries, not just Albanians. That is why so much effort has gone into the Safety of Rwanda Bill, the treaty between the UK and Rwanda and the preparations to operationalise the partnership, with flights as soon as possible after Royal Assent and ratification of the treaty.
Chair
Thank you for that, as far as it goes. That brings us very neatly to the Rwanda partnership. You have just said exactly what I was going to ask about: there is legislation going through the House this week. If it does pass, what are your plans to get people relocated to Rwanda, and how many?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We have robust plans to operationalise the partnership. We are not going to go into detail today.
Chair
“Operationalise the partnership” does not tell us very much at all. What do you mean by that?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Operationalising the partnership means getting flights to Rwanda. Government policy is to get flights to Rwanda as soon as possible after Royal Assent and ratification of the treaty. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister will set out what that means in detail after Royal Assent and ratification.
Chair
If the Bill goes through, you expect Royal Assent pretty quickly. Under Her Majesty it was always very rapid. Do you expect it to be this week or next week?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
For Royal Assent, yes.
Chair
We will go through some other questions about that in a moment, but I just want to pin down costs. The National Audit Office’s fieldwork finished in February; the figures are up to date to January. What are the costs to date of the Rwanda partnership?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As the National Audit Office has set out—indeed, as I have set out to this Committee—the first-year costs in the 2022-23 financial year were £120 million in total, with £20 million in the bank from which Rwanda could draw down. In the second year, 2023-24, it was £100 million. In 2024-25, the financial year that is just starting, the UK Government are due to pay the Government of Rwanda £50 million.
Chair
“Due to”—so it has not gone out yet this month, but it will go out imminently?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That’s right. It will go out as soon as we have Royal Assent and ratification of the treaty.
Chair
Okay, so that is dependent on Royal Assent. If Royal Assent is not given, that money does not go to Rwanda.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We are due to pay that money and we are planning to do so—
Chair
That is what I thought: so you are due to pay that money regardless of whether the Bill becomes an Act.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As we have discussed previously, there are break clauses in the memorandum of understanding. I would not want to preclude, even hypothetically, any future action, but the plan absolutely is to spend the money that is planned for this year imminently.
Chair
Let’s be clear. I do not like dealing in hypotheticals, so let’s be clear about the money. We already know, thanks to the National Audit Office, that this money is earmarked to go out this financial year. Previous ones have gone out at about this time, but you have not actually sent it yet because you are waiting for the Act to get Royal Assent?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That’s right, but I don’t think we are talking about a very long delay.
Chair
So you are slightly hedging just in case, or as I imagine you might put it—well, I would not want to imagine what you are imagining, but there we go.
Olivia Blake
I want to ask about numbers again. How many people will be impacted by the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act? What is the latest estimate on that number?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Who shall I turn to for that?
Chair
Mr Hobbs?
Dan Hobbs
The duty to remove applies to anyone who arrives from a safe third country illegally in the UK. On the impact assessment, as published, broadly it is anyone who is arriving by small boat or otherwise from a safe third country. I do not have the precise modelling number in front of me, but since 7 March the number is around 30,000 so far that fall under the purview of the Illegal Migration Act, although that has not yet been commenced, as the Committee will be aware.
Olivia Blake
Is there an estimate of an annual number at all?
Dan Hobbs
In the economic impact assessment, we set out the modelling for the Illegal Migration Act. I do not have the number immediately to hand, but it applies to anyone who is arriving irregularly or illegally into the UK from a safe third country.
Olivia Blake
Can we get that number? Is that possible?
Dan Hobbs
Yes.
Chair
Yes, we would like to see the figures, please. Thank you.
Tim Loughton
This is quite an important number, isn’t it? It is a growing number, and it can only really be growing. Since the terms of the Illegal Migration Act came in, where anybody has arrived in a boat or from another safe third country, the Government have a duty to remove them without assessing asylum claims—with a few exceptions, as I think you have demonstrated before, Mr Hobbs. Is that right?
Dan Hobbs
Correct, although the duty has not been commenced, so the duty does not apply. It is set out in the legislation, but that piece of the legislation has yet to be commenced.
Tim Loughton
So you do not have a duty to remove anybody still arriving on a boat now?
Dan Hobbs
They are inadmissible under the Nationality and Borders Act. The duty to remove measure under the Illegal Migration Act has not yet been commenced.
Tim Loughton
So that figure of 30,000 or whatever, and the now approximately 6,200 who have come across the Channel in 2024, including over 500 over the weekend: we do not have a duty to remove them as it stands, and they could apply for asylum?
Dan Hobbs
The duty to remove is not in place, but they are inadmissible under the terms of the Nationality and Borders Act. They are already inadmissible to the UK asylum system and are therefore pending relocation. Their asylum claim is not admitted unless they fall under one of the exemptions. The duty on the Secretary of State to remove them has yet to commence.
Tim Loughton
And that figure is likely to be in excess of roughly 30,000, we think, but you do not have the exact number?
Dan Hobbs
Broadly, since 7 March.
Tim Loughton
Mr Ridley, do you have the exact number?
Simon Ridley
The number that was last published is just over 33,000, and we will publish the next statistics in May.
Tim Loughton
How old is that 33,000?
Simon Ridley
We published it on 31 December.
Tim Loughton
So it was 33,000—
Simon Ridley
Up to 28 December.
Tim Loughton
At the end of ’23, to which we can add at least 6,200 who we know have come across in boats. In total, we are talking about a figure that is probably now in excess of 40,000.
Simon Ridley
We will publish it in our next statistics in May.
Chair
Just to be clear, are they quarterly figures published just after the quarter?
Simon Ridley
Yes, we publish them in our Home Office stats every quarter.
Tim Loughton
But it is not beyond the bounds of rationality that we are looking at a figure of 40,000-plus. As it stands, they cannot apply for asylum and the Home Secretary is not yet obliged to remove them, so they are entirely in limbo.
Dan Hobbs
Correct. They are pending relocation at this time.
Tim Loughton
Which is effectively limbo, is it not?
Dan Hobbs
They are inadmissible under the Nationality and Borders Act.
Tim Loughton
They have no status in the UK and the Home Secretary is not yet obliged to remove them, so they are in limbo—I think that is how most people would describe them. What is going to happen to them? If we now have 40,000 people who we are looking to remove—of whom a great number may be removed to countries that do not accept them, otherwise they might have been removed under other criteria already—that is a lot of additional seats on the planes to Rwanda when they start, isn’t it? Or is something else going to affect their status?
Dan Hobbs
Under the terms of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it goes to the arrivals after 7 March last year. The inadmissibility, once commenced, and the duty will apply to them, so they will fall under the current terms of the Act to be relocated to Rwanda.
Chair
All of them?
Dan Hobbs
Under the current legislation, that is the proposal: Rwanda, or another safe third country, as provided for in the legislation.
Tim Loughton
I think the more concise answer to my question is yes. We have 40,000 people in limbo. What will happen to them when the duty of the Home Secretary is effective? How will we remove them if they are going to countries that will not receive them, which we know a large number will be? We have had discussions about those countries before. Or are you anticipating that the 40,000 and growing will be on flights to Rwanda at some stage?
Dan Hobbs
Under the terms of the Act and the existing legislation, they are inadmissible to our system, so they will fall for relocation to a safe third country, including Rwanda, which is our—
Tim Loughton
With respect, Mr Hobbs, you have said that several times. What is going to happen to them?
Dan Hobbs
They will be treated under the legislation once it’s commenced.
Tim Loughton
And what is going to happen to them, practically? Where, practically, are the 40,000 people going to go?
Dan Hobbs
While they are in the UK, if they were otherwise destitute they are provided with accommodation and support. Once commenced, they will then be part of the workflow to go through the provisions set out in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that allow them to bring claims, whether it would be on the basis of imminent, serious and irreversible harm if they were transferred to Rwanda, and then they go through that process.
Tim Loughton
With respect, we understand the process; what we don’t understand is the solution. Permanent secretary, is it therefore possible, if not probable, that all or a large part of that 40,000 may be subject to some form of amnesty, because practically you just can’t remove them?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The Government are not planning to do that, Mr Loughton; the Government are planning to operationalise the Safety of Rwanda Bill as soon as there is Royal Assent, which is imminent, probably. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will be setting out essentially the answer to your question, which is what steps are required in order to get the first flights off to Rwanda. The cohorts on those flights will be from that group of people.
Tim Loughton
Right. But it is 40,000, and the Home Office is not anticipating anything like 40,000 in the near future. They are going to remain in limbo, aren’t they, unless you grant an amnesty?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will set that out very soon.
Chair
I have to say that the Home Office never wants to talk about an amnesty, but I do recall that when I was first elected in 2005 there was something that was effectively an amnesty, for similar reasons. But I can see that Sir Matthew would not want to say that here in the room today.
Olivia Blake
I have another numbers question. When will the Government expect to process the 22,268 claims that were made between 7 March and 19 July 2023, because that is another group in limbo?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We are working through those cases now. Jo, do you want to come in?
Joanna Rowland
All our asylum cases are worked in cohort order. Our decision makers are currently finalising all the claims that were received under the Nationality and Borders Act, as far as they are workable. As soon as that is complete, we will be starting to work on any that were received on 7 March. Obviously the degree to which that processes to a decision will not be for some months, because the process of working any claim is a multi-month process. There are substantial checks that need to be made, and obviously there are interviews undertaken before the evidence is put to a decision maker.
Olivia Blake
Do you have a ballpark figure for when you expect to get to the bottom of that pile?
Joanna Rowland
I would think that we would start working on them next month.
Chair
The beginning of that cohort?
Joanna Rowland
That is the beginning of the processing, yes.
Chair
And then you will be working through in order?
Joanna Rowland
We work in order, yes.
Chair
When do you think you will have completed those, on your current trajectory of caseworker decision-making timetables?
Joanna Rowland
I would not want to give an exact timescale at the moment.
Chair
A range would be fine. Within which six-month period do you think—?
Joanna Rowland
As you know—we will probably cover this later—we have increased our productivity of decision making to about six decisions a week per decision maker, but that was on previous rules. These are new rules for our decision makers. It is going to take a short while for us to understand what a reasonable productivity expectation of them is, and then I will be able to give a timescale.
Chair
Okay. We will come back to some of that in a moment.
Mr Djanogly
We have gone somewhat painfully around the numbers on the duty to remove, so may I have a look at the number of people who will be able to be accommodated in Rwanda? Various numbers have been put about—the weekend press had all sorts of figures—before I join the speculation, may I ask you for some numbers, Matthew?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Of course the Home Office has done a lot of modelling, but there are so many variables, and as you know—we keep repeating this—the scheme is uncapped. As the NAO Report sets out, some of the funding for the agreement between the UK and Rwanda was designed to incentivise the Rwandans to accept a quick first series of flights, and, with separate funding, significant volumes in due course. It is up to our Rwandan partners to provide and find the accommodation for those people, so we are not going to speculate about numbers.
Mr Djanogly
Surely you can say what the numbers on day one will be.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
What we are going to do is ramp up. We will not set out how fast we want the ramp-up to go, but we are working actively with our Rwandan partners on that.
Mr Djanogly
I have seen figures of 300 and 500. What are we talking about?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There is a lot of different numbers out there, but I think there are too many variables to add to that mix.
Mr Djanogly
My surprise is that you have been discussing this with the Rwandans for a long time now—this is not something new. You have pretty much bottomed out what you are going to be paying them. You know where they are going to be going and you have seen the facilities, so you know what the facilities are. You must have some model with ballpark figures for the numbers they could take and by when.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We have modelled that. We have worked closely with them on that, but one of the many things we have learned over the last two years since the partnership started is not to speculate about things like that, given the number of variables. We have plans to operationalise the partnership as soon as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill receives Royal Assent and the treaty is ratified, and we will take it from there.
Mr Djanogly
I can see that you would have an issue if you were talking about further accommodation, but there is accommodation there—the previous Home Secretary went and walked around it—so you must be able to give us a figure for the numbers they can take.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is the responsibility of our Rwandan partners to provide that accommodation. They have assured us—we have tested this over the month, and indeed over the last two years—that they have the capability to accommodate the people we will be relocating.
Mr Djanogly
Am I right in saying that you have just said that, however many you provide, they will provide for the numbers?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That is right. The scheme is uncapped, but one of the many variables and constraints is the capacity and capability at the Rwandan end. One of the reasons why the UK has invested in the partnership is to build up that capability. We know they have the capability to provide and organise enough accommodation for those who will be relocated there.
Mr Djanogly
So as far as you are concerned, the issue is the question of how many people we can transport there, rather than the accommodation being there when they arrive.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
There are all sorts of constraints, and there are all sorts of factors that we need to take into account, but we have been spending the time between the publication of the partnership and today preparing for all sorts of eventualities. We have plans, options and contingency options.
Mr Djanogly
This is my last question. As far as you are concerned, they are prepared, willing and ready to take as many people as we transport there?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Yes.
Dame Diana Johnson
May I return to the 40,000 who could be removed to Rwanda? Once the part of the Illegal Migration Act that allows them to be detained is enacted, would the funding from ODA then not be applicable? Is that correct, or is it correct that as soon as it is enacted, the 40,000 are not eligible to be supported through ODA funding?
Dan Hobbs
Part of the accounting officer advice that is kept under review, going back to the very first answer, is about whether it is classified as ODA if they are treated under the Illegal Migration Act. It is something that is currently being reviewed as part of the overall accounting officer advice.
Dame Diana Johnson
And that is because they are subject to detention.
Dan Hobbs
It is not the case of detention that is the issue. The duty to remove here is very similar to the duty to remove on foreign national offenders. That does not necessarily trigger the ability to detain. We can detain now where there is a reasonable prospect of removal, so it is not that change; it is the classification of the individual that can change the ODA rules.
Dame Diana Johnson
Sorry, can you just say that again?
Dan Hobbs
It is the classification, as the Permanent Secretary was talking about earlier; so if someone is classified as an asylum seeker in a country’s asylum system for the first year, that is classified as ODA. It is the changing nature of how those people are treated, not necessarily the detention.
Dame Diana Johnson
Because they are in limbo. Because they cannot claim asylum.
Dan Hobbs
It is in relation to the inadmissibility, and that is the issue under review by our finance colleagues and with the Treasury regarding the ODA rules and applicability in that sense.
Chair
Presumably you are talking to the National Audit Office about this.
Dan Hobbs
The finance teams in the Home Office are exploring it.
Dame Diana Johnson
My second question is about when they become eligible to be removed if this is enacted, which I think we are all assuming it will be. What is the plan? Are you going to detain 40,000 people on the basis that they will then be removed to Rwanda? What is going to happen?
Dan Hobbs
As the Permanent Secretary said, there are plans both to operationalise the UK-Rwanda agreement under the existing legislation, and then for when the Illegal Migration Act is enacted in full and the duty commences. The Illegal Migration Act is not the only bit of legislation that enables removal; it can be done under existing legislation. The operational plans are advancing on that. As you know, the detention capacity is a limiting factor. Work is going on to expand that detention capacity and work through it, but there are plans and operations to deal with that that are being worked through.
Dame Diana Johnson
You said a lot of words there and have not actually answered my question. Potentially, there are 40,000 people to be removed. I think the capacity for detention is about 2,500.
Dan Hobbs
Approximately, yes. There are plans to expand the detention capacity.
Dame Diana Johnson
By how much?
Dan Hobbs
I think a further 1,000 are coming online, with two further sites being brought online—Campsfield and Haslar.
Dame Diana Johnson
That assumes you are going to have waves of people being detained. Is that what you are planning in this operationalisation?
Dan Hobbs
There is a variety of operational plans that depend on flow. It is probably not appropriate to go through full operational planning, but as you suggest, the plans will look at both the existing population and what flow happens. In terms of the decision to detain, some people will not be appropriate for detention for obvious reasons. But those plans are under way within the Department.
Tim Loughton
I will deal with costs now. The PAC has a very different approach from ours. Can we look at the actual flight costs and the nature of the flights? There has been a degree of opaqueness about what aircraft may be available or not. In the partnership Report, the Home Office estimates a cost of £11,000 per relocated individual for flights. That is some in-flight entertainment going on there. What action does it include?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
This is based on an internal estimate, which we shared with the National Audit Office, as is our statutory obligation, to give a sense of the sort of aspects of operationalisation that would need to take place. There are, as I have said in another context, so many variables. I would not want the Committee to say that it will definitely be £11,000 per person for putting them on the flight. It will depend on a lot of different things, including which aircraft is used.
Tim Loughton
Would it not also depend quite a lot on escorts?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It would. Of course, as the National Audit Office Report sets out, there is a separate cost for escorting and training escorts and so on.
Tim Loughton
There is a separate cost for the training of escorts, estimated at £12.6 million for 2024-25, and then £1 million per year in future. Where is the actual cost of the escorts included? Is it included in that £11,000 or as an additional cost on top of the £11,000 per individual and the £12.6 million training budget?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I think the cost of the actual escorting of the flights is included in the £11,000. Is that right?
Chair
Can Oliver Lodge from the National Audit Office answer?
Oliver Lodge
As far as I understand, it is not included in the £11,000. But we didn’t break down that cost explicitly in the Report, because it depends on the number of flights that are put on. We did not include it, because to do so we would have had to make an assumption about how many people would have been transported and when. So it is an additional cost.
Tim Loughton
This is why this is a very variable figure, because we don’t know. It has been suggested that there are going to be small numbers per flight, but more flights, rather than trying to fill up a complete plane with lots of people where there are the economies of scale. However, different types of individuals require a different level of escort. Some may require none; some may even require three, depending on the risk factor attached to them. That £11,000 per individual is completely spurious, isn’t it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It is a proxy. It is an estimate, and it absolutely will vary person by person.
Simon Ridley
To agree with Sir Matthew, there is a number of variables here, as you have just pointed out, Mr Loughton. It is an estimate. You are right that the number of escorts per person will vary according to the risk assessment of the individual, so the overall cost of a given flight, taking in all of that, will vary considerably.
Tim Loughton
Let’s look at the training costs. You already retain a firm to do the escorting duties for existing people who are being deported. Which firm is that?
Simon Ridley
Mitie.
Tim Loughton
Will you be using Mitie to do this in the future, or is this a completely separate contract?
Simon Ridley
We are working with them to expand the number of escorts that we have.
Tim Loughton
The escorts that you already use through Mitie are already trained. Why is there an additional £12.6 million required for training escorts from a firm that is already contracted to supply trained escorts?
Simon Ridley
The main reason is that we are scaling up our removal operations in order to be able to run regular flights to Rwanda under the new scheme.
Tim Loughton
Why is the Home Office paying for the training? Surely, you pay for Mitie to provide trained escorts. These escorts are going to be no different from the ones that are providing existing operations, are they not?
Simon Ridley
We have worked very closely with our contractors to ensure that we have the capabilities that we need to run the scheme. That is a set of commercial discussions and negotiations. The cost to the Home Office for training under the Rwanda scheme is the £12.6 million that is laid out in the Report. Those are the commercial arrangements that we have come to in order to ensure that we have the right number of people and that they are trained appropriately for a novel scheme that will come under a lot of scrutiny.
Tim Loughton
Mr Ridley, I understand all that. The question is why? Presumably the contract at the moment with Mitie is to provide x number of escorts who are already trained to a suitable standard. That will require some enhanced training for when they are dealing with violent criminals who are being returned at the moment; they are unlikely to be the sort of people who are being returned because of their asylum status. Why do we appear to be spending £12.6 million alone to train people who should already be trained by the firm that you have contracted?
Simon Ridley
The terms under which we have contracted to provide the workforce that we need, trained to the relevant skill level, is the cost that is set out in the Report. We have done that to ensure that we have both the number of people, and the adequate training, to run what is a new scheme. We have some assumptions about the behaviour change of asylum seekers who are going to Rwanda. You are right that we do already remove some violent criminals, and people are trained around that. But we are running a new scheme at a different level, and we want to make sure that we are—
Tim Loughton
A new scheme to do the same thing. Do we pay the training costs for the existing escorts who are provided by Mitie?
Simon Ridley
I do not have the details of our existing contract in front of me.
Tim Loughton
I think we need some more details on that, because I do not think we pay training costs for Mitie’s current contract. We take on trained people. It is up to Mitie to provide trained people, and their rate will be paid for depending on their suitability. Here we have this additional, not inconsiderable, figure of £12.6 million for the training of people to carry on doing the job that they are already doing but under a different scheme. In the past there have been many instances where Mitie, or whoever was doing the operation before, has failed to turn up at the requisite time to Brook House or somewhere else to transport people to the plane and potentially escort them as well. What recovery costs are there if they fail to show up to do the job?
Simon Ridley
On the first point, because of the need to scale up numbers, we needed to ensure there was the scale of training facilities that we need. We also needed to do that quickly. There are additional costs from us doing this for the Rwanda scheme at the scale and pace that has been required. Those are reflected in the costs. We can certainly come back with some more detail, subject to the necessary commercial confidentialities, but this is not the normal run of business that we are working with our partners on.
Tim Loughton
What other contracts are there between the Home Office and a firm providing staff where the Home Office pays for the training? Do you have any examples?
Simon Ridley
I would have to have a think about it.
Chair
I am sure it is not rocket science. Could you look into that and come back to us in writing, please? Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, deputy Chair, has the next set of questions.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Mr Ridley, you may be the right person to answer these questions. It would be wrong to have this part of the session without fully understanding the total costs of this partnership. I would like to be absolutely sure that we have understood them. Could I take you to paragraph 2.1 on page 12 and run through the costs? I think what those paragraphs tell us is that the economic transformation and integration fund payment over five years is £370 million. It is also telling us that if 300 people are relocated over five years, which is not unreasonable—60 people a year does not seem to be an overly ambitious target for all this work—£20,000 per individual relocated would be another £6 million, and a further £120 million once 300 people have been relocated, and a further £150,000 in round figures per each one of those 300, which is another £345 million. According to my maths, at those figures the total paid to the Rwandan Government would be £541 million over five years if 300 people are relocated. Is that correct?
Simon Ridley
That is a correct summary of what the NAO has laid out in the Report, but it is important to say, as Sir Matthew and Dan have, that this is an uncapped scheme. This is about paying money up front for a scheme that would go far beyond 300 people.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Understood; it is an uncapped scheme, and it might well be more or less. But at those numbers, which are all that is reasonable to suppose, is that what the cost would be?
Simon Ridley
Yes, the Report has correctly laid out both the ETIF points and the per-person points.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is really helpful. How did you assess and review the Rwandan Government’s estimate of processing and integration costs?
Simon Ridley
I might hand over to Dan, who had most of the discussions with the Rwandans.
Dan Hobbs
In terms of the direct costs, setting aside the economic and transformation partnership, it was a negotiation that we worked through with them on the breakdown of the various elements of the package that they were supporting—the accommodation costs, the integration and education and the facilities that they would provide. We worked through the costs of those elements. It was never intended that this would be sought to be done at significantly lower cost to the UK. This was about having a quality scheme that delivered for the individuals and gave a five-year package of support. It was agreed that it would diminish over the period. The annual payments reduce over the period because you would expect people to become more self-sufficient. There are higher costs at the beginning due to the processing of the individuals and their assimilation and integration into Rwanda. Over the period of the five years, we would expect them to become more self-sufficient. That is how the agreement was structured: one was on the evidence that they provided on the costs that they would incur in support the individuals, and the other was that it would tail off over the period as people become more self-sufficient.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I think you said at the beginning of that answer that these costs were equalised with those of the UK, so these are not Rwandan costs—
Dan Hobbs
No, not equalised. We were not seeking to do it at a lower cost. There was never an intention of seeking to make this a purely cost-driven agreement in terms of the comparative between the UK and Rwanda; it was based on the evidence Rwanda provided to us of what the direct cost to them would be of providing the services.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Could we assume, then, that if all these people were processed in the UK, as opposed to being sent to Rwanda, the costs would be the same?
Dan Hobbs
The illegal migration economic impact assessment sets out the counterfactual of costs related to the asylum system and the “do nothing” option as a comparator, and that was published. That foresaw that the accommodation bill would inflate to something like £11 billion a year and that the comparative proxy cost was £160,000 over the five years. That was set out in the economic impact assessment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
How will this change once you have met your other policy objectives, such as getting out of hotels? This cost that you are incurring at the moment, which we referred to at the beginning—the £4.3 billion.
Dan Hobbs
In terms of the UK costs, a big part of providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute is the accommodation costs. As I say, there is a figure in the economic impact assessment on that per night, which does in part relate to hotels. Obviously, the intention of the policy is partly to deter individuals coming from safe countries—incentivising people to claim in the first safe country, or where they have found sanctuary. There would be other costs that we would not incur should the deterrence effect impact, including our Border Force and Manston operations, and other elements. It is quite a complex figure to get to with the deterrent, but the economic impact assessment set out the various levels of cost in a public document.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
We will come back to that in the next part of this hearing. Sir Matthew, how do your current relocation plans affect your assessment of the feasibility of the partnership?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I continue to assess that the partnership is feasible. There are risks in relation to feasibility, but there is also a huge amount of work by Home Office staff, under Simon’s direction, to get the partnership up and running.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
At what point will you have the evidence to conclude whether this policy represents value for money, which is why you have got a ministerial direction in the first place?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I keep that assessment under constant review. Once the flights to Rwanda are up and running and once there have been some of them, it should be possible to see whether there is a deterrent effect. Analysts are working on this issue in the Home Office, and they will update me each quarter, or more frequently if there is some significant change.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I want to probe you a little more on that, because that is critical—the deterrent effect is critical to the whole success of the partnership. How many people need to be deterred, in your view, for you to be able to make the assessment that the policy is value for money?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
First, I agree absolutely that it is essential for the judgment of whether it is value for money to judge what sort of deterrent effect the policy has had. Secondly, the initial modelling, which we made public, suggested that from the previous year there needed to be a roughly one-third reduction—that is from 2022 levels—for the policy to count as value for money. Of course, it is difficult to assess what part this policy plays in any reduction, compared with other policies that the Government are pursuing, such as the Albania agreement that I referenced earlier and other things that the Government are doing. That is the analysis job that needs to be done.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I don’t have the figures for ’22, but no doubt you have them at the top of your mind. Is it round about 35,000? Is that the sort of figure we are talking about?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That’s right. As it happens, there was about a one-third reduction between 2022 and 2023 because of Albania and other things. Of course, the Government will be looking for a further reduction on top of that, and that is why we are working so hard.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I think the ’23 figure was 45,000, wasn’t it? I can’t remember what the ’22 figure was.
Simon Ridley
They were the other way round.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
So given that you think you need a third to make that assessment, you are going to need a reduction of about 10,000.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
Approximately, but I will come back to the Committee once that work has been done. Certainly, I will be looking at it every quarter, and more often than that if there is a significant change. I have discussed that assessment with this Committee and the Home Affairs Committee in the past, and there were some questions about whether it was possible to expect some sort of deterrent effect before the flights were up and running. I think it is now fair to say that that is not likely, but once the flights are up and running, it should be possible to make that assessment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is very helpful. Thank you.
Chair
But of course if you reduce the cost of asylum management in the UK, some of which we will be covering in the next bit of this session, you will see a different figure, won’t you?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
That is absolutely right. The comparator is the per person per night cost for accommodation, plus all the other costs that we need take account of—the “do nothing” option, as Dan put it—and that number is also changing. That is one of the challenges.
Chair
Before I move on to Mr Grant, let me say that I have actually visited Rwanda. I visited a UNHCR camp with, in that case, mostly Congolese refugees, and I saw the conditions they were living in. They were potentially free to get work, travel and so on, but there were lots of challenges in that situation. Have you considered that the offer of going to Rwanda that is now being made to people who arrive in the UK on boats is an incentive? People may seek to relocate to Rwanda via the UK, rather than through other routes. It could be driving people to get a £120,000 package to settle somewhere, rather than being stuck in a UN camp. In that case, generations of children had grown up in that camp.
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, I don’t think there is yet evidence to suggest that that is a driver of behaviour. As you know, Chair, the Government’s assessment—Ministers strongly believe this—is that the deterrent effect is likely to outweigh any other type of behaviour. It will deter them from leaving one safe country—in the case of small boat arrivals, France—to come to the UK. That is the journey that the Government is seeking to deter through the Rwanda partnership.
Chair
Except that the French aren’t offering £120,000 relocation packages. I will leave that, as it is more about the policy.
Peter Grant
Staying on deterrence for a minute, what you are saying is that the likelihood of drowning in the channel doesn’t deter people and the likelihood of detention without trial, effectively without a time limit, on something like the Bibby Stockholm doesn’t deter people, but the likelihood of being given lots of money to start a new life in Rwanda is going to deter people. That is the Government’s interpretation of what will deter and what won’t. Am I correct?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
No, the Government’s policy is to deter people from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys. That is why we are working with our colleagues and partners in France to reduce the number of crossings. We also work further upstream with countries where many of these asylum seekers come from to create conditions that mean that they do not need to leave their home countries in the first place. As Dan said earlier, if they do, they should be seeking asylum in the first safe country that they come to. There are, of course, lots of other factors at play, but the overall purpose of the Rwanda policy is to deter people from coming to the UK if they do not have the right to be here.
Peter Grant
A minute ago, you said that the intention was to stop dangerous illegal crossings, and now you have said that the intention is to stop people from coming—
Sir Matthew Rycroft
If they do not have the right to be here, not least as one of the ways to get here is very dangerous.
Peter Grant
You haven’t assessed the costs and benefits of the Rwanda scheme against the costs and benefits of actually providing a safe and legal means for people to come here and apply for asylum in the correct way. You haven’t done that assessment, have you?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
As you know, Mr Grant, there are safe and legal routes for some people already and the Government are committed to assessing whether there is the possibility to create further safe and legal routes in the future.
Peter Grant
Thank you. I want now to look at the measures that you are taking to ensure that this scheme does not get abused, because potentially there is a lot of money going to be floating around. How confident are you that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not frittered away through fraud or other abuse of the scheme?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We have a shared interest with our Rwandan colleagues in ensuring the success of the scheme and the appropriate spending of all the money, so we have set up both a joint committee and a monitoring committee to help ensure that all UK money spent in Rwanda is spent in the way that was intended.
Peter Grant
What lessons have you learned from the massive losses through fraud and wastage that a number of your colleague Departments incurred during the covid pandemic?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I am not sure that there are direct lessons to learn from spending during covid in the UK to apply to spending outside covid circumstances in Rwanda, other than the importance of transparency and regular monitoring. The governance efforts are where we have put our effort, and we have been spending the last two years before the operationalisation of the partnership setting up those arrangements.
Peter Grant
Does keeping Parliament waiting nine months for an accounting officer assessment contribute to the transparency that you just mentioned?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I am committed to providing this Committee and the Home Affairs Committee with as much as possible.
Peter Grant
Thank you. Mr Hobbs, can I come back briefly to the question of the 30,000 or so people who will fall under the scheme if and when it is enacted? Where are they just now?
Dan Hobbs
If they were otherwise destitute, under our legal requirements we will be providing them with support. That may be in the form of accommodation or subsistence or both. Or they may be in the UK subject to immigration bail, not supported if they have other financial means to support themselves.
Peter Grant
Do you actually know where they all are?
Dan Hobbs
We will have addresses and details for individuals. They are required to update the Home Office and they are generally required to report regularly. That is part of our ongoing policy and operations around enforcement and reporting of those in the UK who are subject to immigration control.
Peter Grant
But does that mean that you know where they are, or that you know where they say they are? Because let’s face it: the Home Office historically does not have a good record on knowing where people are, whether they came here legally, illegally, or as refugees or asylum seekers.
Dan Hobbs
We will have details of residences that are provided for each of the individuals. They are required to update those and, as I said, they will be subject to regular reporting requirements, which will enable us to keep contact. Where they do not, that allows us to action any absconding elements and use our trace and locate services where appropriate.
Peter Grant
Thank you. Part of the scheme sets out that there is a payment each year for five years to the Rwandan Government while somebody is in Rwanda. Those payments stop if the person chooses to leave Rwanda. How will you know if they have left Rwanda?
Dan Hobbs
Because under the agreement, the Rwandans are required to provide full, detailed information to us on a regular basis. They are in the process of readying the implementation of tracking individuals and whether they choose to stay, and being able to report on their ongoing residence in Rwanda. Obviously, Rwanda is required to provide their accommodation, so it will know whether there are ongoing accommodation and other costs associated with that individual, but there is a reporting requirement on the Rwandans as part of the financial measures under the treaty.
Peter Grant
Have the Home Office independently assessed the ability of the Rwandan Government to implement a tracking scheme for potentially 30,000 or 40,000 people?
Dan Hobbs
Through the joint committee and the independent monitoring committee, there are measures in place to do the reporting. The Rwandans have reporting requirements in terms of accountancy and their systems and processes, and we continue to work with them. We have Home Office staff located in Kigali in readiness for the transfer of individuals, and we continue to work with them on their operational readiness and ours in terms of preparations for go live of the policy once the Bill and the treaty are ratified.
Peter Grant
How do you make sure that someone doesn’t just keep going round in circles—go and live in Rwanda, come out of Rwanda, turn up in the UK as an asylum seeker, get sent to Rwanda again and pick up another package? How are you going to know that that is not happening?
Dan Hobbs
It is important to say that the package does not go to the individual; the payment is made to the Government of Rwanda. It is unclear that there would be an incentive for a person with five years-worth of support, because the payments set out in the NAO Report are not direct payments to the individual; they are payments to the Rwandan Government to provide those services.
Peter Grant
You are going to be making sure that the Rwandan Government are spending the money on providing services for those people?
Dan Hobbs
Yes, they have to provide accountability and reports to the joint monitoring committee, and the independent monitoring committee also have the ability to oversee that. That is done through their Auditor General and in line with international accountancy standards.
Peter Grant
How much would it cost to provide the same services in the UK to these people?
Dan Hobbs
We don’t have that figure immediately to hand. As I say, the economic impact assessment on the Illegal Migration Act looks at the immigration system costs—the direct costs in terms of the immigration system. It does talk about the non-quantifiable costs, in terms of those elements, but there is not a direct comparator figure for providing the same support.
Peter Grant
Thank you. I know questions have been asked previously, Sir Matthew, about the scheme—which I understand is not actually part of the Rwanda agreement—whereby the Home Office will offer to pay failed asylum seekers in the UK if they agree to relocate to Rwanda. Has that offer been discussed with the Rwandan Government? Are they comfortable with it?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It has been discussed. You are right to say that it was not part of the original memorandum of understanding, but it was an additional agreement that the two Governments came to relatively recently. So yes, it has been fully discussed with—
Chair
What is the figure? It is £6,000 to relocate back to your home country for someone who has a failed case. What about to Rwanda?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
It’s £3,000.
Chair
So they have the choice of £3,000 to go to Rwanda or £6,000 to go back to their own country?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
This is in relation to people who by definition have not accepted the offer to go back to their home country.
Chair
I just wanted that to be clear. Thank you.
Peter Grant
Have you made any assessment of how many people per year are likely to take up that offer?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
We have done some modelling and we were very much seeing this as one of the ways of testing the broader partnership with Rwanda.
Peter Grant
What was the outcome of your modelling?
Sir Matthew Rycroft
I don’t think I have any numbers to pass on, but the offer is there for people in that cohort.